Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Present: Hon. William H. Mulligan, Hon. William H. Timbers, Hon. Ellsworth A. Van Graafeiland, Circuit Judges,
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed.
Appellant's constitutional claims were properly dismissed largely for the reasons noted below by Judge Blumenfeld. Appellee Hon. John R. Thim is not amenable to suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). Dismissal was appropriate as to Appellee Abraham, the court clerk, on grounds of qualified immunity, Tucker v. Maher, 497 F.2d 1309, 1313 (2d Cir.), cert.denied, 419 U.S. 997 (1974). Since no specific allegations were made against appellee Dunn, counsel to the County Grievance Committee, he too was entitled to dismissal. Kador Corp. v. Milbury, 549 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1977). Nor was any claim stated against the Grievance Committee since appellant has no constitutional right to discipline of her attorney. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973).
No state action exists to support a § 1983 claim against appellees Wolfe, Lukas, Shatz, Cantor, Daly, Marcus, Trantolo, DiCorleto and Mrotek. Further, a § 1985 claim does not lie against these appellees because there is no allegation here of a racial or class-based animus underlying the conspiracy. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 101-02 (1971). Absent a valid § 1985 claim the § 1986 claim must fail as well. See Johnson v. National Broadcasting Co., 356 F. Supp. 904 (E.D.N.Y. 1973).
The allegations of appellant's antitrust claim are entirely conclusory and fail to set forth any specific injury suffered by Varley as a result of the minimum fee schedule despite repeated amendments to her complaint. Such insufficient pleading, even by a pro se litigant, fails to state a cognizable claim. See Klebanow v. New York Produce Exchange, 344 F.2d 294, 299 (2d Cir. 1965).